HokiePundit

The Worst-Case Scenario of Thomas Jefferson's Dreams

Thursday, May 30, 2002

Off to Brussels until Monday!

I actually bought a Team USA soccer jersey for the World Cup yesterday (it wasn't easy to find, either!). Despite all evidence, I remain convinced that we've got a shot at winning it all. I considered getting an England jersey, but I decided that it would be mildly traitorous. I'll still root for England so long as they're not playing America, but I can't wear England apparel. Such is my life.

Monday, May 27, 2002

Okay, HokiePundit officially misses the good ol' US of A. We've got quite a few things that our cross-pond cousins don't, and I'd like them. I want hot food. I want something other than beer or mineral water to go with my dinner. I want corned beef and cabbage. I want green vegetables. I want American Portions, rather than these single-serving jobbies that they've got here. I want stores to be open later than 6PM. I want a girl with fingernails that shine like Justice and a voice that is dark like tinted glass. I want more than five channels. I want fairly predictable weather.

Okay, enough whining and moaning. England's not that bad. A little bit more warmth, some better nutrition, and I think everything would be hunky-dory (I can't believe I just said that).

Oh, and I think I can still name every single alcoholic beverage I've ever had and when I had it.

Saturday, May 25, 2002

Yesterday was Culture Day for HokiePundit. After class, I got a free sample of a sandwich from Starbucks (chutney and banana, and it was actually very good), then went to KFC and got some chicken poppers for lunch. Really, honest, I wasn't trying to be American, but KFC had the best prices. Anyway, I took the tube down to the British Museum, where I was promptly astounded. That place is HUGE, with over 60 exhibit rooms. When I say exhibit rooms, I don't just mean "this is a Roman suit of armor, let's go to the next room where we have an Egyptian mummy." No, each room could easily take you at least three hours to go through at a modest pace, and a whole day if you were to read all the descriptions and try to learn as much as you possibly could. It would take you at least six months to see the entire museum, and far longer to comprehend it in any detail. After just a few minutes in the Southeast Asia room, I felt immeasurably ignorant. I know a fair amount about history, but this place just made me feel...stupid. After going through that one room at a somewhat fast pace, I left in search of some Red Bull energy drinks to sustain me, and then went back into the breach. I looked through a little of the Prehistoric, Greek & Roman, Ancient Near East, and Egyptian rooms before finally deciding that my head was about to explode, and that it was vital that I leave while I still could. Still, I managed to see the Rosetta Stone and, to my surprise and pleasure, some of the Amarna Tablets (they mention the hapiru and may be evidence of the Hebrews being in Egypt when the Bible says they were). After that, I found a nice suit store that was nonetheless going out of business, and got two very nice suits for far less than even one would've cost at normal prices. It was about 4:30, and so I decided to head to Southwark Cathedral for Evensong. I miscalculated my stop by one, and so I did a fair amount of walking to get there. Along the way, I found the Paxman shop (maker of some very fine French horns), where I stopped and looked around some. Finally, I made it to the cathedral just in time. I didn't know that there was a liturgical service with it, but since I'm familiar with the Anglican Rite, I didn't have any trouble fitting in. The gift shop was closed, but that's okay, since I'd already dropped a fair amount of cash on the (very nice) suits. Finally, I made it back to my room, where I rested for a while. I was too tired to go clubbing, so no one else from my group was there since they apparently weren't too tired. Around 11, the RA (Egyptian Sun-god) dropped by and asked if I was doing anything. I wasn't, so we headed over to the Imperial College pub (American colleges need on-campus pubs, not to mention lower drinking ages). Admission was £3 since it was a Friday night, but the drinks were cheap so it was all fine. One room was pretty much a traditional pub, but the other was a would-be rave. My friend and I headed over there, and since there was a foosball table, we played a game. Trust me, playing in a very dimly-lit room with a dark ball and two beers in you is a bit of a challenge. I ended up winning, but only because I thought there would be more balls than there were and I don't usually try to beat girls in games unless they're my blood relations. It didn't help that I'm pretty decent at foosball as it is, so I would reflexively block shots that I wanted her to score. Oh well, I tried. After getting back from that and sleeping for twelve hours straight, I watched a fair amount of rugby on TV. If you were wondering, Leicester held Munster for an unprecedented second-straight Heineken Cup, while the English national team defeated the Australians and advanced to the semifinals of some cup I forgot the name of. Tomorrow, it's back to Southwark Cathedral for morning services, and then possibly the British Museum and a comedy club that's been highly recommended to me.

Oh, and in an interesting turn of events, I was doing some reading yesterday and oddly enough, the voice that I sometimes hear reading along with me in my head was different. Usually, it's like I'm talking to myself as I read, and my voice is recognizable. Yesterday, it was British. Actually, I don't know if it was British. It was some odd mix of English, Scottish, and Irish, but at least it was constant and consistent. I tried speaking with the accent that I heard, but wasn't entirely successful. I've also started saying "chube" instead of "tube" and a few other British-isms. Won't be long now bayfore I lak dags (Jew lak dags? Dags? Yeh, dags. Oh, dogs, yeah, I like dags) or staht tollking loik Ollyvah Twist, eh guv'nah?

In case the link above doesn't work (I was having some trouble with it earlier), I was sad to read that Mark Butterworth has left the Roman Catholic Church (well, perhaps it left him, but that's semantics). I was baptized Episcopalian, and while I disagree with many of the policies of the Protestant Episcopal Church USA, I've never really left them. Of all traditional church services, I still feel most comfortable with the Anglican Rite (in case you're wondering, the Episcopal Church is the American branch of the Anglican Communion, a confederation of Anglican Rite churches begun by the Church of England (hence "Anglican")). Even when I attended services at Methodist churches (Methodism is an offshoot of Anglicanism), I still considered my self both Episcopalian and Methodist. Probably the main reason I stayed Episcopalian is because while I disagreed with the Protestant Episcopal Church USA, I knew that many, even most, of the Anglican Communion was different.

Where am I going with this? I'm not entirely sure. It used to be that I was Protestant because it seemed the most American way, and thus most natural to me. I couldn't understand why anyone would be Catholic (either Roman or Orthodox) except that their parents had also been Catholic, and thus they were just doing as they were told. After all, I was and am familiar with Catholic views on morality, and when I saw people claiming to be Catholic constantly violating those views, I thought that this was further proof. Now, they certainly weren't the only ones, but then, other people I knew who did the same things didn't claim to follow a religion which opposed such things. I wasn't completely right, but I did have it partially. Many people are "historically" Catholic rather than practicing Catholic (all religions have this, by the way). They do as their parents tell them regarding their religion, and they like the community and "status" of being Catholic. However, this certainly isn't all Catholics. Through reading and talking with people like Mark Butterworth, Louder Fenn, and Chris Burgwald, I came to understand the Catholic viewpoint, and while there are portions I don't agree with, I think we have an honest disagreement. Furthermore, the things separating Protestants and Catholics aren't, at least from my perspective, things that are make-or-break. My view on the issues I disagree with is that they were instituted with good in mind, but gradually people forgot that certain things were symbolic rather than literal. I think that this can confuse people and may lead them to abandon the Truth when they see an apparent contradiction. I'm sure Protestantism has similar minefields that I'm blind to as well (if I had to say, I would guess that it Protestant churches don't encourage enough respect, while Catholic churches don't explain their position well enough and may cause people to tend towards idolatry).

Again, I'm not entirely sure what to say. Part of me wants to encourage the Roman Catholics to stick with your church, since "this too shall pass." I know there's a lot of evil in the clergy right now, but it's not in the majority. Furthermore, Catholic strength is in the laity (I consider monks, nuns, and friars to be lay as well). On the other hand, risking having your or your family's souls being corrupted is not an acceptable price to pay. I'm thankful that I'm not in a position where I have to decide, and I offer my sympathy to the Roman Catholics out there in such a trying time.

Wednesday, May 22, 2002

Apparently, in the view of my roommate, I was drunk last night. I heartily disagree, but I can understand his point. I'm also told that I'm a very talkative drinker, and furthermore that it had been discussed among those at the other pub last night and decided that I probably would be. Enough of this "I sorta-kinda got tipsy!" business, since I'm sure that's not why you come to HokiePundit.

Today, I went to the British Natural History museum, which I didn't really like. I've found that I'm starting to not like a lot of big museums (the Smithsonian, etc.), and I think the problem is that it's geared more towards foreign tourists and school groups. Almost everything at the BNH museum was stuff I'd already learned, and I get bored when I'm not learning. I will say that I enjoyed the gemstone collection, but then, I would always enjoy the gemstone collection at any museum. After that, I rode the Eye of London (the world's largest Ferris wheel) and braved the steak for dinner. It was actually excellent, and the fries (chips) were top-notch. Corona had come highly recommended to me (despite the stories of Mexicans urinating in it), and it proved to live up to the hype (not the peeing part) (I hope).

London itself is an interesting town. It's very flat, while DC and Alexandria are rolling and hilly. I'm starting to learn how to be a pedestrian here without getting killed, and even managed to walk all the way over to Buckingham Palace from my place in Kensington this morning to see the changing of the guard (which I didn't see because the first changing is apparently at 11:30). People aren't exactly standoffish, but privacy is highly valued. Given that London is so compact, I guess I can understand that, though I do miss the friendliness of Virginia. I've decided that what I need to do is go to a sports pub during a World Cup match. I'm one of the few Americans I know who likes to watch soccer (football here), and so I doubt I'll be bored. I've also noticed in myself and in other people in my group that we're starting to pick up British-isms. I'm already saying "pardon" instead of "'scuse me," and the only music I seem to be in my head is Handel's Water Music, U2, the Trainspotting soundtrack, and, unrelatedly, Rocky Top, which I've never even heard in its entirety. Such is life here. I'm definitely behind on my reading of other blogs, though I do try to cycle through every few days. It's past midnight now, so I'm off to bed. G'night Yanks!

Tuesday, May 21, 2002

Well, I tried Guinness. It tastes like wood and is generally nasty (I think I'll stick with lighter beers). I also tried absinthe (that stuff is expensive, and gets you very tipsy very quickly. Honestly, my goal is not to get drunk. And since I can still type, even on a British keyboard, at least 30 words per minute, I think I'm okay. Still, it's an unusual feeling. Don't have absinthe unless you're absolutely sure you want to get drunk. I think I'm halfway there right now, and so I won't have any more. I can still walk, see, and type, but I understand that I'm impaired. I'm tired, though, and so details of the London I experienced today will have to wait.

Monday, May 20, 2002

As can be seen, I survived the trip across the Atlantic. However, being unfamiliar with British keyboards, I'm having some trouble typing. Nonetheless, for the sake of my fans and my ego, I shall blog.

Okay, let me start by saying that I haven't had real sleep since Friday night. The first of those nights was entirely my fault, but the second one was because not going to sleep immediately is supposed to help with the jet lag. We've been standing and walking through airport terminals and Kensington almost non-stop since noon on Sunday. Anyway, after a short hop to Philadelphia (the City of Clogged Arteries), we headed off on USAir for London-Gatwick. Contrary to my expectations, the flight was fine. The food was pretty good, we were fed snacks quite often, and most importantly, we each had our own free television set in the back of the seat in front of us, where we could watch movies, TV shows, listen to music, whatever. I watched Bandits and part of K-PAX, which were both very good (it's apparent to me however that Kevin Spacey only knows how to play one kind of character, though I'll admit he does it well). I was also offered wine with my meal, which I tried. It was a Sutter Home red, and was pretty bitter and generally awful. Thus, I watered it down to about 1/4 red wine and it was tolerable. Anyway, we eventually landed and went through Customs. Have you ever seen Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels or Snatch? Remember the hilarious sarcastic Cockneys? Well, one of them was my Customs person, and believe you me that irritating Cockneys suck when you actually have to deal with them. In any case, we ended up waiting for about three hours for another flight carrying the rest of our group to arrive, and then finally reached the place we're to stay for the next four weeks (eleven weeks in my case). Um...yeah. I had no clue they could possibly make bathrooms that small. I know economy of size is important, but this is ridiculous. After a multi-hour walking tour of Kensington (without any sleep yet), we had a little bit of time to ourselves, where my roommate and I went to the grocery store and stocked up on provisions. To any paranoiacs out there, let me assure you that American supermarket technology is light-years ahead of Britain's. It's just amazing how certain things just either aren't available or are barely so. After this, we all went to a pub called the Anglesea Arms, which was very good. I had some light-colored beer I can't remember the name of (Hoengaard? Something like that?) and steak and kidney pie. However, the thing that most amused me was that the first thing that I noticed when I walked into the pub was that the bartender had a shirt that said "AA" on it. Irony at its finest. After that, we returned to our pad, where I went down to the computer lab and typed this.

Sunday, May 19, 2002

By popular demand:

How to make a ska band:
Take one punk band, remove lead singer.
Replace punk singer with lead singer from swing band.
Add one trumpet and one trombone (may double and/or also add a bari sax player)
Emphasize beats two and four
Be happy.

Saturday, May 18, 2002

Tomorrow I go across the pond. That's right, I'm off to Lun-dun, In-ga-lund (I wish I could remember the movie that line is from, all I know is that "London, England" is said with a John Wayne-type accent). I'll be studying Scottish devolution and European integration while staying in Kensington near Imperial College, with side trips to Edinburgh and Brussels. Tips for things to do/not do would be very appreciated, though I'm sure I'll stick out as an American no matter where I go (Great Satan pig-dog, allahu akhbar!!!). I'll have some access to the internet so I'll try to keep blogging, but posts will definitely be fewer and farther between. Tally-ho!

Friday, May 17, 2002

Oh, since it appears a few college professors read my blog on occasion, let me share with you a plea from students.

Please stop using PowerPoint in dark rooms! Actually, quit using it at all! If you've got pictures, use a slide projector. Your students all know how to take notes, and you insult our intelligence and put us to sleep (seriously) when you read exactly what's on the board. We don't like it. We don't learn. Multiple-choice tests are also a bad idea, though not as bad as PowerPoint. Honestly, your students want to learn, but when we can just download your notes from the web, it doesn't exactly encourage us to pay attention in or even attend class. Keep in mind that we'll be the people educating your kids and grandkids, so you might want to teach us well.

Archaeopteryx is often touted as evidence that dinosaurs' scales eventually became modified to become feathers, and thus that evolution from reptiles to birds is a feasible idea. However, there are a few questions about this that I'd like to have answered before accepting this idea.
There were two groups of dinosaurs: saurischia (lizard-like, and including things like Triceratops, Stegosaurus, and pretty much all the dinosaurs that walked on four feet) and ornithischia (bird-like, and including Velociraptor, Tyrannosaurus rex, and most of the dinosaurs that walked on two legs). Now, the idea behind Archaeopteryx is that a member of ornithischia modified over time and eventually became a bird. There's a problem, however. Ornithischia doesn't have the right anatomy to give rise to birds. Saurischia does (or at least has a closer one). Archaeopteryx is definitely an ornithischid, and lacks a sternal keel for anchoring the bulky muscles necessary for flight. It also doesn't have the wishbone-shaped pelvis common to birds (which saurischia does possess). Even more important, it doesn't appear that archaeopteryx was anywhere close to flying or even gliding. Its back feet were best suited for running along the ground, not perching in trees as would be necessary. Now, saurischia does appear to have many of the anatomical features to possibly give rise to birds. However, we haven't seen any saurischids remotely resembling birds, casting doubt on the possibility that they did in fact do so. I also wonder why no reptiles since have developed feathers, if the variation was common enough back then to allow a new class to develop. This is certainly not conclusive proof against macroevolution, but I do think that these questions are worth being answered before accepting theory as fact.

Thursday, May 16, 2002

You know, this whole boycott of France could seriously piss me off. You see, I intend to go visit some cathedrals in France during my trip to Europe this summer. I'm not happy at allabout the idea of skipping some of the most beautiful religious sites in the world because French politicians are cretins. Seriously, buying Chilean wine and deciding not to take a long vacation are one thing, but I regard this almost as a pilgrimmage. I haven't decided what I'm going to do yet, but I'm on the verge of just calling everyone hateful [jerks] (boycotters and French alike) and sulking.

UPDATE: Yes, as you can see from my comments section, [jerks] replaces another word I used. I apologize to all who may have been offended.

Yes, yes, I saw the new Star Wars movie, who wants to touch me? I SAID WHO WANTS TO #^$(@ TOUCH ME?!?

Okay, my rating system is as follows: if I like it, I give it a star. If not, I don't. I give Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones a star. It wasn't incredible. I wasn't blown away. It's not the best of the Star Wars movies. Still, it was entertaining. Samuel L. Jackson is Shaft-tacular. Yoda's lost the sideburns and does some serious whoopin'. There are plenty of pretty special effects, and we get to meet Boba Fett for the first time. Jar-Jar is minimized. The courting goes on a bit too long without a fight, but it's not like it's Pearl Harbor or anything. Now, many people seriously dig Natalie Portman. I'll admit, she's cute. However, that's it. Anakin is, well, kind of like how you'd expect a petulant teenager to act. Kind of smooth, kind of not. Ewan McGregor is, of course, outstanding. I liked the fight scene with Darth Maul from Episode I better than the fight with Count Dooku, but it wasn't bad, either. Star Wars addicts are going to consider this movie further proof of God's existence, mild fans such as HokiePundit are going to think it was pretty good, and your average movie-goer will think it was an entertaining way of spending $7.50.

Okay, as I understand it, Lucifer "The Light-bringer" was a cherub, and was in fact the wisest, most beautiful of the angels (I'm not sure if this is all angels or just cherubim). When man, who was inferior to angels was given dominion over the earth, Lucifer became jealous and started a slander campaign, eventually winning over 1/3 of the angels to his cause. He also tricked Eve into disobeying God, hoping to prove to God that Man was unfit to rule, and that he (perhaps angels in general, and not just Lucifer) should be given control of the world. There was a war in heaven, Lucifer and his followers fell, and because Man had sinned, Satan was given temporary custody of the world until Man could be put back into a state of Grace. Basically, while Satan didn't deserve to rule, he was/is more capable after Man sinned than Man was/is. I'm going to toss around a few thoughts now, but don't worry; I'm not going New Age on you.

1. Angels are often referred to as morning stars. Lucifer is the light-bringer (the Hebrew makes it clear that this light is the color of "shining brass," and thus yellowish). Did the Hebrews identify Satan with the sun (the star Sol which the planet Earth orbits), and other angels with other stars they saw? Is it conceivable that this may even be true (my understanding is that angels have at least some physical form)?
2. As all the angels are immortal spirits, would it be the case that Satan and his followers are not redeemable since they made their own choice as to disobeying God, while Man after Adam and Eve is given a chance for salvation because we were born with original sin and thus have to work with the corruption we've been given? I'm not sure if this would mean that Adam and Eve could be saved, but I think it would depend if they were really tricked or if some malice on their own part caused them to disobey God.
3. Satan's followers are described as fallen, and man is also often described as fallen. This may just be a metaphor, but is it possible that God, in his mercy, is allowing these angels who followed Satan to have a chance at redemption? This would mean that all humans are really the angels who fell from God and must use this life to attempt to regain a state of Grace.

I don't know the answers to these, I have a lot more thinking to do.

UPDATE: A further thought: Satan continued to have access to God in the Old Testament, and slandered Man (see the Book of Job). After Jesus rose, however, war arose and Satan and his followers were cast out. Now, why should it be at this moment that the war occurs? It seems to me that the purpose of God coming as a man was to show that the flesh doesn't require a person to sin (if it did, then God, who is all-good, couldn't have successfully been a man without changing the flesh into something not-man). With Satan thus proved wrong, his trial was concluded and his punishment was to be banished from God's company (which is what Hell is considered to be).

Well, due to the awesome power of the blogosphere, my donkey has been fact-checked by spaul in the Comments section on my recent "what if" post below. There is in fact no reference to Satan being redeemable in the Bible, though I'd heard many people say that this was in fact the case. I should've looked it up myself, and I apologize for not doing so. I'm looking up a lot more about such things right now, and I'll post once I have a fuller understanding of them.

Hey, guess what movie I'm going to see tonight at 7PM EST? No, not Spider-Man, since I've already seen it. I've already seen Hollywood Ending, too (Woody Allen makes fun of the French!). I'll leave guessing the movie as a discussion topic, and I'll post my thoughts upon my return.

UPDATE: Or I might just go to sleep when I get back, since I've had a bit of a headache all day long, in which case you'll have to wait until tomorrow. However, I might pray to St. Tylenol and tough it out for the sake of those unable to get opening night tickets (I would snicker, but it's not like I camped outside or anything for them, I just went online at the right time).

For some odd reason, I can't reply to any of the emails I've been sent. If the Instapundit himself happens to be reading this, I appreciate your linking to me on Tuesday and in your FoxNews column yesterday. Perhaps if I stop downloading my email and just reply from my online mailbox, it'll work better.

Wednesday, May 15, 2002

Ben Domenech's on fire today. Be sure to check out his Christian apologetics at the bottom (I especially like the part where he says my name). He doesn't post on theology much, but when he does it's pretty impressive.

"There is a dream that is life
Ethereal and ephemeral
Abort, abort
It's not my dream, I don't want it
I created the dream, but I refuse to share it
It's unwanted, misshapen, and it's my choice
I murder my dream"

-unknown

Yeah, it's depressing, I know, but that's okay. Can't keep a contact high all day, now can I?

Okay, it's time for a "what if" scenario. I wonder, is it possible that if a history of the universe were to be written that the big story wouldn't be God's Creation and the Fall of Man, but instead God's struggle to save his fallen angel (Satan)? The Bible tells us that even Satan is redeemable, and Lucifer fell a lot further in becoming the devil than Adam did in eating from the tree of knowledge. It would be humbling to find out that we were only a minor front in the battle for Satan's soul, and that humbling would probably be a good thing.

I know I haven't finished my draft, but I've done some work on it, so I'll do a little posting. I went hiking today at Old Rag Mountain in Shenandoah National Park. My friends Christian and Brian and I set a pretty impressive pace, doing the ten miles in less than three hours (counting a short water break and a longer break for lunch, and not taking elevation into account). I think I'm out of shape, but then, for me "being in shape" means being able to crack walnuts in the crook of my elbow and running a four-minute mile. I'm not remotely close to either, so I guess I'm destined to live in perpetual disappointment. However, I was riding shotgun on the way back in Christian's Toyota Camry, and we all noticed that there was a BMW convertible being driven by a Daddy's Little Girl about our age with her friend. I glimpsed them as we passed them at one point, and they weren't bad looking (I didn't swivel my head and stare like my compadres, but then I'm pretty arrogant about not "sinking to that level"). Well, there was a decent song on the radio, so I figured "what the heck, I'm going to rock out." Well, I was seriously grooving and even throwing in some gratuitous headbanging for the heck of it, when I noticed that this BMW had followed us across three lanes. Neither amigo was breaking it down, so I figured it was time to really ham it up. As we were about to take a ramp off, they sped past us and the prettier of the two waved at me (I waved back, of course). The moral of the story? Always rock out. Compliments like that will keep my ego stoked for at least a week (remind me to relate my tale of being a gentleman and the accompanying suffering some time). I rule.

Well, they've caught most of the people involved in the recent spray-painting of campus. They're being charged with felonies, and I think they deserve it. We have a beautiful campus, and the last thing we need is some idiot NOW-nothings spray-painting stupid slogans like "Smash Patriarchy" on our library's glass windows and on Hokie Stone buildings, which are expensive to repair. I mean, it's common and acceptable to use chalk to put "You Can Stop Rape" on the sidewalks (though you risk the retaliatory "You Can Stop Raping Goats" campaign of two years ago), but paint is beyond the pale. Looking at these students, we begin to notice a pattern. They're all at least 20, and two are former students. Three of the four I could find in HokieStalker (the VT Personal Look-Up System) are majoring in soft social sciences. Allison Berg was the Green candidate for Town Council (she got arrested on election day!). Why do I not think that you'd find a Sophomore Mechanical Engineering major from Lynchburg doing this kind of stuff?

After my thorough Fisking by Mark Byron and Louder Fenn, Mark Butterworth comes to my rescue here and here. In case you weren't sure, I'm severely exaggerating all this. I have nothing but respect for all these men, and I think it would be great to be able to sit down with them one day and just discuss.

In other news, HokiePundit recently discovered that you get a lot more hits if you link to yourself in the body of your posts. It's cheap, but amusing.

You know that mini-golf Flash game out there? I'm pretty good at it, shooting a 1 or 2 on almost every hole...except #14. I haven't a clue how it's only a par 2, nor have I (obviously) discovered a workable strategy. So far, I've just been trying to line up a direct shot with just the right amount of power, but I keep going over until I finally luck out. If anyone knows a good way around this, I'd be very grateful if you'd tell me. For that matter, if you're having help with other holes, let me know, since I can get a hole-in-one on about seven of them on a regular basis.

You know, the HFStival sucks this year, as it has for the past several years. I look at the lineup and there isn't a single major rock band on there. The closest I see is Eminem, but he's rap (since he's white, though, he gets played on the Modern Rock stations). I mean, years past had Green Day, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Foo Fighters, 311, and even Jane's Addiction. Now we get Hoobastank. I've never even heard of them, but their name gives me the distinct impression of filthy hippies who smell like (among other things) burnt rubber. Alien Ant Farm did an excellent cover and music video of Michael Jackson's Smooth Criminal. I liked that one song by Papa Roach and that other song by Goldfinger, but...well, I'm sure you see where I'm going with this (not to mention that Goldfinger's hit was when I was in 8th grade). I want to know what's happened to the music on the radio that these [dumb] kids are listening to (ending a sentence with a preposition isn't actually a violation of grammar, though I'll bet you were told so). If the best you can come up with to play is Limp Bizkit, we have a problem. Apparently the Gin Blossoms, Cake, any form of ska or punk, and any Sublime except "What I Got" don't have enough pissed-off angst for radio play. Seriously, all I hear now is Limp Bizkit and Blink 182 (who've made a lot of money off playing the exact same frikkin song over and over with different lyrics). Are the people four years younger than me really this stupid, or are they being manipulated. I've seen evidence both ways, so I'm not sure.

HokiePundit: When you absolutely, positively need rants about the good old days from a teetotalling 19-year old virgin.

Monday, May 13, 2002

Well, I found the Mars Hill Review today. It seems too intellectual for even HokiePundit, but we won't hold that against them, now will we? Still, it's hard to argue with a magazine that covers both the secular and the religious successfully.

David Hogberg emailed me a few minutes ago, titling his missive with "You Rock Like No Other, HokiePundit. Visit my website, Cornfield Commentary." Flattery will get you everywhere with HokiePundit. Welcome to Blogistan!

Well, Mark Byron disagrees with Louder Fenn's characterization of my post as Unitarian, and says that it's actually Universalist. In any case, he takes me to task. First off, I welcome these criticisms. I certainly wouldn't say it gives me a chance to prove my side right, since I'm not exactly sure where I stand, but it's a good chance for me to further clarify my thinking. When I think about religion (or any matter, actually), I try to find a tenable position, and hold it until proven wrong through either criticism or more knowledge. I brought up a position I was testing as defensible, and apparently the forces of Apologetics are laying seige to it. I'll play Devil's Advocate (no snickering from the peanut gallery) on this one, and I guess we'll see what we see. I'll be jumping around Mark's post, so it may be a little hard to follow. Just to make sure it's clear, I really do appreciate the feedback I've gotten from that post, and I'm certainly not offended in the least that people disagree with me (though I probably should've hedged my bets by calling it a Theological Foray).

The central thing Mark takes issue with is my thought that Jesus is Son of God in a way different from how regular people may be. I do think that the Word had a major part (at least) in Jesus Christ, but let's consider what at least seems like a viable scenario. There's a school of thought (I can't remember what it's called, unfortunately) that says Jesus was just an ordinary guy (well...a haploid guy [sorry, science joke]) until his baptism by John the Baptist, where the Holy Spirit came down and "fused" with him. This theory contends that at this point, Jesus bar-Joseph became Jesus Christ and was in fact part of God. Now, it's pretty impressive to have God Incarnate speaking to you, but how much difference is there between God doing something personally and God inspiring someone else to do it (this also applies to miracles, with the "poof!" kind no more special than the simple ones like a hopelessly evil man turning his life around)? I have to say that I've always had trouble understanding the traditional view of Jesus' sacrifice. Yes, Jesus died on the cross unjustly. Other people were crucified for things they weren't guilty of as well (though I'm aware that they were still guilty of things with which they weren't charged). I mean, I see the whole "dying for your beliefs" angle, but I don't really understand the significance of the rest of it. Yes, we killed God (he rose, just in case there are any smug atheists reading this), but didn't we do essentially the same thing when we first disobeyed God, and every time we sin? To me, the crucifixion is worse than other things we've done, but still within the same scale. What I'm left with isn't a definitive statement that Jesus wasn't the same as normally portrayed, but a defensible position that this was the absolute least he could possibly of been. In John 1:1, we hear that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." However, if we were originally part of God, then couldn't it be said that all men are the Word? Angels (including Satan) would also seem to fit this description. A common contention about what Jesus said and who he was is that he was either a liar, a fool, or correct. However, what if there's a disagreement over the meaning of what was said? Imagine if Jesus had said that he was a New Yorker. Scholars might say that as such, he was likely raised watching Yankees or Mets games, riding the subway, and was accustomed to seeing the Statue of Liberty. However, wouldn't it also be possible that he was from Albany, rather than Brooklyn? What I'm basically saying is that with my knowledge at present, I don't know that the traditional view can be fully supported.

I think Mark misinterprets my comments on the virginity of Mary and the sexuality of Jesus dividing Catholics and Protestants. There's no serious debate among the two that Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin (though I do think that there are some valid criticisms of this that ought to be addressed) or that Jesus also remained a virgin, but that wasn't what I meant. The Roman Catholic Church considers Mary co-redemptrix, says that she always remained a virgin, and that she was sinless, else she couldn't have given birth to Jesus. To a Protestant (-ish) like me, there are some problems with this. If Joseph never consumated his marriage to Mary, were they really married? If not, then a lot of Bible genealogy is pointless since Jesus wouldn't have been heir to Joseph. Since Jesus is regularly considered Joseph's son, then it seems to me that he must've had a consummated marriage with Mary. Also, if it takes someone sinless to make another sinless person, then we need to assume that both of Mary's parents were also sinless. Ultimately, we could trace it back to at least Adam and Eve, who we know sinned. Thus, it seems more plausible to me that God forgave Mary's sinful nature and allowed her to bear Jesus. If details about Mary are rendered moot, then it doesn't matter who she was, and we can concentrate on God's Word.

Mark also points out that not by following laws will we be saved. I have to disagree. God told us to love Him and to love each other. That's a law. What Christians are freed from is relying on a far larger body of laws to tell them what's allowable. Many things that come up today aren't covered by Jewish law, and thus I suppose they'd be considered okay. However, Christianity tells us to consider ideas and practices in light of their relation to God. Everything must be judged by God's simple love-law.

I also didn't mean to imply that our souls would be destroyed rather than suffer eternal torment. The idea is that such destruction would be the only way we could escape at that point.

Lastly, we get to the uniqueness of Christianity. I assert that it's possible to achieve salvation without ever hearing a word about Jesus Christ (otherwise, a lot of people are screwed). As I said, though, it's a lot harder, which is why missionary work is so important. Such people may encounter Jesus after they die and recieve what correction is necessary, but it's not required in this life. The idea that some people have an easier road than others sounds unfair, but we have to remember that none of us even deserve a chance to be saved, and so arguing about who is helped more is ungrateful.

Again, I don't mean to disprove anything said by Mark or Louder (I assume Louder Fenn isn't his real name, but I haven't a clue what it is, so Louder he shall be). My Christianity as a theory is a chassis on which I add parts that fit until I've got something that works better than it did before. If I'm following the blueprint wrong, I'm happy and grateful to fix my mistake.

Okay, I've got a problem. A very large part of my being is telling me exactly what I ought to do with my life, and the remaining part is scared absolutely excrement-less by it.

Now, I want what most people want. I want a wife, kids, friends, a house, a good job that I love, and probably some hobbies and maybe a small garden in my backyard. I want honeysuckles growing on my back fence and daffodils in my front border by my porch. I want a car with hydraulics, too, but that's not important right now. I want to gradually rise in a natural progression to a respected position in my field, and die knowing that I did right and that everyone loves me. I like sleeping in a warm bed with nice sheets, being complimented on my looks or brains, and advising people when they need help. So far as I can tell, this is pretty much the American Dream, and is shared by everyone (well, some people want to shoot a president to impress Jodie Foster, which I do find somewhat hard to argue with, but moving on...).

Unfortunately, that's not what this rebellious part of me wants. That part is telling me to give up my nice clothes, give all my money to charity, and live an ascetic life. It tells me that marriage, while noble for some people, isn't my destiny and would hurt me in my attempts to achieve salvation. It's telling me to drop out of school and go work with my hands and preach the gospel (with words, if necessary, to quote St. Francis of Assisi). I've got many gifts, and I should use them to help the most needy.

I'm desperately trying to find the best way to be altruistic while doing the most good. It seems to me that with at least a bachelor's degree, and possibly a master's or doctorate, I could do a lot more. I don't really have a skill in trade right now, though I could learn one without too much trouble by joining the military or volunteering. I'm not entirely sure what I should do next, but until I do, I think I should keep on my current path. C'est la vie, non?

Actually, "Hokie" doesn't mean what it appears pretty much everyone thinks. The Hokie is the mascot for Virginia Tech (the Fighting Gobbler is too, though I'm not precisely sure how it all works). Technically, it isn't anything. If you've seen our mascot on TV, that's the Hokie Bird. While the Hokie Bird is a Hokie, it's not the definition of one. The term "Hokie" came from a cheer (now called "Old Hokie") written in the 1890s for Tech by a student, and going
"Hokie, hokie, hokie hi, Tech, Tech, VPI
Sola-rex, sola-rah Polytech, Virginia
Rae, ri, VPI!"
Basically, "Hokie" means roughly the same thing as "Yay," "Whoo," or (shudder...) "Wahoo."

Anyway, that's only semi-important right now. When most bloggers say "hokie" to describe something country and backwards, they really mean "hokey." Homonyms, you see. Thus, the dance you learned as a kid was the Hokey-Pokey. Meanwhile, the dance that the Marching Virginians do at halftime, eliciting cheers and childlike wonder is the Hokie-Pokie. Similar, yet subtly different. And that's what it's all about.

Apparently, the world (or the part of it that counts) thinks I'm straying into Unitarianism with my post below. Almost, but not quite. As I said in my post, there are things that I honestly just don't know at this point. What I've said is what I consider to be the bare minimum of my beliefs. I'm the kind of person that will constantly examine and re-examine something, and so I don't want to go off all half-cocked and assert something that I'm not positive I agree with. I suspect that there's far more than what I expounded below, but I don't want to risk inconsistencies later on if my view changes. Also, as for non-Christians achieving salvation, I meant those that had never been really exposed to Christianity (that's official doctrine of most churches I know of). It seems to me that at the very least, Christianity provides the simplest way to reunify with God. To sate my critics, I'll say that I think it's probably the only way (assuming exposure to it, of course), but I haven't investigated other claims enough to say fairly that I think they're wrong. It's probably because both my parents are lawyers, and I like to be very careful in what I say and how it's said. Sue me.

Saturday, May 11, 2002

This whole Christian Blogging thing has gotten pretty big. In fact, it's gotten so big that I'm overwhelmed. It used to be that my list of Consie Christers had pretty much everyone. I started blogging about theology before I knew anyone else was (they were, of course). Now, it's inescapable. Unless I'm willing to spend hours, there's no way I can read all of the blogs I'd like to every day and thoughtfully consider them. Heck, I used to be able to just go to Mark Byron for the Protestant view and Louder Fenn for the Catholic! I've expanded a fair amount, but I know of quite a few blogs that I don't read on a regular basis (and even a few I'm ashamed to admit I haven't even looked at yet). All I can hope is that other Christian bloggers will point me to especially good posts.

Mark Butterworth is an underappreciated source of wisdom among Christian bloggers. I'm not sure that I agree with him on some issues (I mean that literally; I simply haven't considered them enough), but he brings up good points. I read some recent posts (Thoughts #76 and Thoughts #75), and got into my bad habit of thinking.

I've always been receptive to the idea that Christianity as an establishment (rather than a means) isn't the only True Way. Before I go any further, I'd better do some heavy clarification. I believe that there is one God, and that this God created us and everything in the universe. I believe that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life (after his baptism, at the absolute, no-questions-possible, latest). I believe that Christ's teachings on love and attaining the Kingdom of God were correct. However, I don't know (in the same sense as above) that he was the one and only Son of God in a way distinct from what every person potentially is. I'm not sure how important that part is, either. If what he said is true, it could've come from a Ouija board and still be as correct. Having the proponent of an idea also be a follower lends some credence to it (I suspect that atheists/agnostics reading this will disagree and demand an explanation, and while I'll do so if asked, I also think it's self-evident if you stop and think for a bit). Thus, move from concentrating on the man to concentrating on the message.

Looking at the message rather than the messenger is helpful in that it removes outside influences. It's true that you can learn a lot about a book by its cover, but many false ideas have charismatic proponents (just as truths may be espoused by either the attractive or the lowly). It also means that squabbles over the virginity of Mary or the possible sexuality of Jesus are nullified, and so a stumbling block between Catholics and Protestants is removed. When looking at any claim, we want independent attestation. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, but having several witnesses improves the reliability of a claim. The major philosophies of life currently existing are Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Stoicism and Confucianism also tend to influence these belief systems, but rarely act on their own. I think that the persistence and size of these schools of thought lends them some credibility. I don't say that the bigger a following something has, the truer it is. However, if something has survived hundreds or thousands of years of questions and still has a sizeable following, the likelihood that it has some hold on the truth is far higher than if it is extinct or only has a few followers. If we are to assume that all major religions have at least some part of the truth, the best thing to do is to compare similarities, as these are probably true. What comes to light first is a sense of order and duty. The creator is above the created. Goodness is portrayed as sky and air and evil is the ground and underworld, a physical representation of good over evil. We also find that we've separated from our former union with God and fallen (a physical representation, again). Our goal is to reunite with God (or as Buddhism portrays it, an eternal energy; I'll refer to this as God for my purposes here) by following certain laws and codes of conduct. By achieving harmony with God, we are able to join him (her, it, whatever).

There are two primary manifestations of this duty and order that we see. The first is the responsibility to know one's place. If one having authority is over you, you are to obey them. This may be God, a king, a governor, a parent, etc. For those under your own authority, you are to discipline them when they fall out of line in order that they may learn their place. However, the other side is that of love. We are always encouraged to treat others as we ourselves would be treated. A master may order an underling to do something, but he should not order them to do something that is wrong. If someone needs our help, we should give it. This also applies to oneself. We're to abstain from certain practices because they're ultimately hurtful to ourselves or others, not because they violate some abstract rule. If our ultimate goal is to achieve union with God, then sins are those things which delay or prevent that from occurring.

Now, there are some parts that need more explanation. A reasonable question at this point would be to point out that Hinduism and Buddhism believe in reincarnation, and to say that a just, loving God wouldn't damn us (in other words, prevent us from joining him) and so we'll all eventually achieve union. If there is infinite reincarnation and we're destined to eventually become one with God, then why should we do anything? Eventually, we'll just stumble upon the right answer or God will get fed up with our absence or figure that, in the words of Sgt. Hartman, "if God wanted you up there, he woulda miracled your [donkey] up there by now, wouldn't he?" I think this is a very risky way of thinking. There is also a claim that we only get one shot. In the absence of full information, it's safer to assume that we need to try and save ourselves in this life, and then be pleasantly surprised if we're proven wrong by being reincarnated (sort of like Pascal's Wager). As for being miracled up to heaven, this is essentially stating the Problem of Evil. I don't have a full explanation, but it seems to me that if this were a viable option, it would've occurred by now. Since it hasn't, it's reasonable to assume that it won't happen, even though we don't know why (just like how scientists know the universe exists, but can't prove why).

In order to be reunited with God, we must fit in. Jesus said rightly that no one mends shrunk clothes with an unshrunk patch (unless they're ignorant, of course), since they'll tear after being washed. As such, to be successfully reincorporated, we must match God. Life is our chance to change our soul's composition. If we let life by and don't use our chance to change ourselves, we may never again get the chance. Thus, we'll endure the hell after we die of knowing that we're separate from God but not having the opportunity to change. We would only be able to hope that God could put us out of our misery by causing us to cease to be.

That is what Christianity is. It's a clarification of Judaism. When Jesus says that he is the only way to God, he means that only through love and duty can we change ourselves to be in God's image. Hindus who walk in love and duty will also be saved. The difference is that Christianity is the simplest of the ways to achieve this. Any belief that has part of the truth can lead to all of it, but the more extraneous material there is, the more opportunites there are for straying from the True Path.

Friday, May 10, 2002

Well, I'm sure you already know, but Sergeant Stryker's Daily Briefing no longer exists. However, no need to fear! The Man with No Name is still doing Beers Across America (same URL), so we've still got his seriously high-quality writing. Check it out.

It sounds like he also got busted by his superiors (a lot of officers really have nothing better to do than yell at NCOs). I'm not sure if this only applies to officers, but I know that soldiers (sailors, airmen, etc.) aren't supposed to officially criticize their chain of command, such as the President. Even bumper stickers are often prohibited. Sarge had mentioned, over time, his service branch, approximate rank, specialty, current assignment, at least one former assignment, and family status. I can understand the importance of the policy, but it's not like he was posting under his real name. A shame, but at least we've still got Beers Across America.

I think Christian rock is finally coming of age. In the past, putting "Christian" before a musical genre all-but-doomed it to the Bargain Bin (it still hurts some, as evidenced by MxPx, P.O.D., Lifehouse, and Creed [links will come when I've got my regular computer set up] not using the adjective "Christian" but authorizing Christian bookstores to sell their albums). We've all heard of acts like Amy Grant, but that style was at most one step away from what you might normally hear in church on Sunday. You could get away with Christian themes in Country and Rap music (Gospel, too, of course), but not Rock unless you were U2 and managed to hide it behind metaphors. Essentially, if you were Christian rock, it meant you weren't good enough to be regular Rock. Radio stations never played Christian rock, except in what I think were deliberate attempts to discredit it (before you think Im being a reactionary [I am, of course], let me provide you with a very secular example. The Punk group NOFX is famous for going Gold on all their albums, despite shunning Mtv and radio play. Nonetheless, because they wrote a song on their latest album about how much radio stations suck, they thought it would be funny to release it for airplay. However, nearly all the stations took another song on the single which wasn't very good and played that instead, and all talked about how much that song and NOFX sucked.). The one song I've heard by Jars of Clay wasn't very good at all, though I've been assured that the rest of their material is very good.

Anyway, I'm writing this because I recently got Hit Parade by Audio Adrenaline. This is the first Christian album I've bought that wasn't Christian ska (O.C. Supertones, Five Iron Frenzy, Insyderz), and I wasn't sure how I'd like it. I really like the late 80s-early 90s sound (Gin Blossoms, for example), so this turned out very well for me. They sound like some fusion of U2, Jesus Jones (not a Christian group, FYI), and Fountains of Wayne (with some Butthole Surfers on Some Kind of Zombie[thanks to the Ole Miss Conservative for this one]). If you're into the Limp Bizkit sound, skip this one. However, the thing about it is that Audio Adrenaline is the first good Christian rock band I've heard. Again, I'm told that Relient K and the Newsboys aren't bad either. However, I think we've hit the turning point. Radio stations will play what's good and sells. They never mentioned the Christian aspects of Lifehouse, Creed, U2, MxPx, or P.O.D., but they had no trouble playing them into the ground. Christian ska is already just as good as regular Ska, and finally Christian rock has at least a few entries just as good as regular Rock.

Thursday, May 09, 2002

As I'm wont to do, I got around to thinking a few days ago. I think I've seen the dividing line between brilliance and simple knowledge (perhaps what sets us apart from the lesser animals? Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself...). The difference is the ability to make a certain kind of mental connection. It first occurred to me last year in my chemistry class. We'd just re-learned the formula for compound interest in math, and we'd been learning chemistry formulas that day in class. Lo and behold, one of the formulas for decay (or something similar) was almost the exact same as compound interest. It occurred to me then that I may have just glimpsed part of the fundamental nature of the universe (not to be too dramatic about, of course). I won't say that I understood this thing, but I did recognize it. I realized that this is exactly what geniuses do, on a far larger scale. They can make these connections. It almost made me want to take more math and chemistry, just so I could develop this link better. I don't think I'm describing what I mean very well, so let me try an analogy.

At some point, someone noticed that a lot of languages had peculiar similarities. The words for a lot of things were eerily similar for the same thing. For instance, the word for "no" in most languages in India, Persia, and Europe begins with the letter N. The word for "mother" usually sounds like some variation of "mahter." This person got the bright idea that perhaps some of these languages might be more related than the Romanic/Germanic/Slavic/etc. designations usually used. From this, the theory that all Indo-European languages (except Basque) were derived from a common ancestor.

I still don't think I've really made my point, but it's late, and typing on a laptop keyboard is taking its toll on my patience. I'll try and develop this later (if you know what I mean, please post something more clear than what I've said).

Yeah, I know I'm not posting much. I owe Dave a response to his letter, and I'm getting a lot of traffic from Martin Roth which is probably going "what's the big freakin' deal, female-dog-in-heat?" My excuse will be that I only recently got back to Alexandria (aka "civilization") and having not yet unpacked my computer, I'm using a laptop. Plus I think I've already said all I know about religion, but I'll see if I can't find a way to repackage it in new and exciting ways for you. I'm impressed that my traffic has remained pretty similar to what it was at the height of my posting, and I'll try to make your visits more worthwhile than simply seeing lists and lyrics.

Monday, May 06, 2002

Top 57 movies (so I'm inspired by ketchup; sue me):
Amistad
Analyze This!
Animal House
Best in Show
Black Hawk Down
Blast from the Past
The Blues Brothers
The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)
Dr. Strangelove (Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb)
Elmer Gantry
Empire of the Sun
The Fellowship of the Ring
Fight Club
A Fistful of Dollars
For a Few Dollars More
Galaxy Quest
Gettysburg
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Groundhog Day
H.E.A.T.
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Lawrence of Arabia
Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels
The Longest Day
The Magnificent Seven
A Man for All Seasons
Man of La Mancha
The Man who Shot Liberty Valance
The Mask of Zorro
Meet the Parents
The Mouse that Roared
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
The Nightmare Before Christmas
Oh God!
Patton
Pleasantville
Pulp Fiction
Raiders of the Lost Ark
RAN
The Razor's Edge (1946)
The Razor's Edge (1984)
Rules of Engagement
The Seven Samurai
Shaft (2000)
Shaka Zulu
The Shawshank Redemption
The Shoes of the Fisherman
Snatch
South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut
Three Kings
Tora! Tora! Tora!
Toy Story
Toy Story 2
Trainspotting
The Truman Show
U-571
The Way of the Gun
Zulu

UPDATE: I would've included Shrek and The Langoliers, but there's nothing nifty about the number fifty-nine. Perhaps if I can think of ten other good movies, I can offend some people!

Friday, May 03, 2002

I made Rank Captain for the Marching Virginians next year! That means I'm in charge of about eight other people, and that I'm responsible for keeping them functioning as a cohesive unit. What can I say? libelow TIMMY!

Thursday, May 02, 2002

I feel bad not posting anything substantial lately, but it's time for finals! (Happy happy joy joy...). I've got two on Friday, two on Saturday, one on Monday, and possibly another on Wednesday (though possibly not). Look for real blogging to resume on Tuesday. I haven't quite figured out if and how much blogging I'm going to do over the summer whilst in London, but I suspect it'll be at least a little.

About Me

HokiePundit is lawyer, but is probably not your lawyer. Nothing he says is to be taken as legal advice unless he is, in fact, your lawyer. HokiePundit can be retained for a reasonable fee should you wish to obtain his legal advice.